Note : Les descriptions sont présentées dans la langue officielle dans laquelle elles ont été soumises.
~L~3~LS~
Description
Weighted Random Pattern Testinq Apparatus And Method
Field of Invention
This invention relates to testing, and more particularly to
the testing of very large integrated circuit devices.
Description of Prior Art
Complex very large scale integra~ed circuit devices
fabricated on a single semiconductor chip contain thousands of
functional circuit elements which are inaccessible for discrete
testing. Because of the complexity of the internal
interconnections and their combinational interdependencies,
testing for device integrity becomes increasingly time consuming
as the number of circuit elements increases.
If by way of example a semiconductor chip were to have fifty
input connections, the number of combinations of inputs is 25.
While one could apply that number of different input patterns,
record the output responses, and compare those responses with the
responses ~hat ought to result, that is a herculean task and
impossible for modern production testing.
A testing protocol as above-described, is described in the
Giedd et al U.S. Patent No. 3,614,608 assigned to the assignee of
the instant application. To reduce the number of patterns
reguired for testing Giedd et al employed a random number
generator to generate the test patterns. This expedient
considerably reduces the number of patterns needed to test a
device. ~his is true because a random pattern generator, unlike
a binary counter, produces a succession of~binary words wherein
the split betwean binary zeros and ones approaches~a 50% split
for a substantial numbe~ of successive words, which number of
words is very considerably less than the total possible number of
different words. Thus, each input to the device under test (DUT)
has a 50~ chance of receiving a binary æero or one input with a
fewer number of input patterns.
FI9-85-026
. :
--2--
~23~9
A second expedient to reduce -testing time is to employ
weighted random patterns as inputs to the device under test
(DUT). This ploy applies a statistically prede~ermined greater
number of binary ones or binary zeros to the input pins of the
DUT. The object is to apply a weighted test pattern that will
have a maximum effect upon the inaccessible internal circuit
elements.
A weighted random pattern test method is described by
Carpenter et al in U.S. Patent No. 3,719,885 assigned to the
assignee of the instant application. They employed a
pseudo-random pattern generator to produce a random succession of
binary words which were decoded from binary to decimal and the
decimal taps connected together in groups of two, three, four,
five, etc. to produce multiple or weighted outputs from the
decoder. These outputs are then applied to a bit change which
produces an ou~put whenever it receives an input.
A further dissertation on weighted random pattern testing
can be found in an article by H.D. Schnurmann et al entitled "The
Weighted Random Test-Pattern Generator", IEEE Transactions on
Computers, Vol. C-24, No. 7, July 1975 at page 695 et seq.
Yet another expedient to improve testability is to build
into the chip additional circuit connections for the sole purpose
of testing. Obviously these circuits must be kept to a minimum,
consistent with testing needs, because they reduce the
availability of circuits for the routine function of the device.
A device, exemplifying this built-in testability, is described in
the Eichelberger U.S. Patent No. 3,783,254, assigned to the
assignee of the instant application. It will be seen from an
examination of Fig. 6, which is a replication of Fig. 7 of the
said Eichelberger Patent that the shift register portion of the
device can receive inputs directly from an external connection
and deliver an output, and are thus directly accessible for
i testing. This LSSD (level sensitive scan device) is most
particularly suited for testing by the method and apparatus to be
described.
Eichelberger, in U.S. Patent 3,761,695, discloses a method
specifically designed to test the foregoing LSSD device.
FI9-85-026
_
~34~;~9
The use of "signatures" in lieu of a comparison of every
individual test response with a known good output response is
taught by Gordon et al in U.S. Patent 3,976,864.
While the prior art testing methods were suitable for
testing devices of the then-existing complexity, the increase in
circuit density requires more sophisticated testing techniques,
not only to reduce testing time, but to assure the functional
integrity of these devices. While a defective integrated circuit
cannot be repaired, it would be most useful if one were able to
diagnose the failure mode of the device to at least a few
fault-prone elements so that process changes in the manufacturing
of the device could be instituted to minimi~e the number o~
faults.
Summary of the Invention
It is therefore an object of the invention to provide
improvements in the technique for testing complex, very large
scale integrated circuit devices~ and for diagnosing the failure
mode of those devices which have failed to pass.
A further object is to provide a plurality of pseudo-random
pattern generators as the source of input test patterns, to apply
the test patterns in a predetermined succession of sub-sets, to a
device to be tested while storing and analyzing the outputs
responsive to those sub-sets of devices which fail to determine
the probable faulty elements within the device.
Yet another object is to employ weighted random patterns as
inputs to the device to be tested, wherein the weighting of the
applied test patterns is a function of the number and kind of
internal circuit elements that are directly or indirectly
affected by an inpu~ signal on the respective input terminals of
the device.
Another object in accordance with the preceding object is to
provide an algorithm for computing the respective weights to be
given to each input terminal.
The foregoing and other objects, features and advantages of
our invention will be apparent from the following and more
~: :
FI9-85-026
,
:: ;
~3~
particular description of the preferred embodiments as
illustrated in the accompanying drawings.
Brief Description of the Drawings
Fig. 1 is a block diagram of the testing protocol.
Fig. 2 is a block diagram of a representative connection of
a linear feedback shift register to junction as a pseudo-random
pattern generator or a multiple input signature register.
Fig. 3 is a weighting circuit for selecting the weighting of
ones and ~eros from the random pattern generator of Fig. 2.
Fig. 4 is a block diagram of the testing apparatus.
Fig. 5 is a flow diagram of the computer program for
calculating weighting.
Fig. 6 is a replication of Fig. 7 of U.S. Patent No.
3,761,695 which is a schematic of a Level Sensitive Scan Design
(LSSD) device.
Brief Description of the Preferred Embodiments
The broad, overall concept of the testing apparatus and
method is shown in Fig. l. Since the testing protocol is generic
~ to a broad class of solid state devices, the development of a
protocol for each individual point number starts with the part
number logic model 10. This logic model is contained in a
computer which contains a schematic diagram of each different
part-numbered device with all of the interconnections between all
of the internal functional elements between the input and output
terminals plus the nature of each functional element i.e. shift
register latch, AND gate, AND/INVERT gate, OR gate, OR/INVERT
gate, etc.
This logic model (in computer software form) is entered into
a computer segment 20, labelled good machine simulation, which is
capable of simulating the output response of a good device at
every point in a succession of input stimuli supplied by a
software random pattern generator 30. The simulated responses
from unit 20 are combined in a multiple input signature register
simulator 5MISR SIM) 25 which receives a succession of input
responses from the good device simulation 20 and produces a
derived function thereof.
FI9-85-026
:
,
,
~23~599
When it is time to test a specific DUT, the unit 30
conditions the tester hardware random pattern generators 40 to
apply the same patterns used in the simulation to the DUT 50,
which device responds to these test patterns to produce a
succession of test responses which are processed in a hardware
MISR 25 to produce an actual signature.
The expected good signatures produced by simulation in unit
25 are stored in the tester and compared in the tester signature
compare unit 60 to determine whether the DUT is bad or not bad.
Bad devices are either discarded or subjected to a diagnostic
routin~ unit 70, again a computer program which relies on the
logic model 10 and a simulation of the stuck faults necessary to
produce an output like that produced by a bad DUT.
Testing Concept
The testing protocol is designed to determine whether any of
the internal functional circuit elements in a complex solid state
device is stuck at zero or stuck at one. Testing speed is
adjusted such that all circuit elements have sufEicient time to
obtain their respective stable states.
The devices to be tested and the testing protocol itself
obey strict predetermined rules of binary logic. Thus, the
output response of a device under test can at all times in the
test cycle be predicted in advance as a function of the history
of applied input stimuli. The word "history" has been chosen to
denote that many logic devices produce outputs which are a
function of both combinational and sequential logic.
Because of the complexity of the devices to be tested, their
operation must be simulated in a computer to provide reference
data against which the test outputs are compared. This is
performed in advance of testing for each different device to be
tested. During this advance simulation the optimum test protocol
for each separate device is also determined.
The "optimum test protocol" is not to be construed that the
computer determines in advance what specific test patterns shall
be applied. It determines where and when the test patterns,
whatever they may be, shall be applied to any specific device for
.
~ FI9-85-026
,
_. :
. . `
~3~LS~9
the most definitive test. It also determines for each respective
device which ones of the input terminals should preferentially
receive binary ones or binary zeros and in what statistical
ratio.
While the computer simulation does not pre-ordain the
specific bit configurations of the applied test patterns, it can
predict, by exploiting the known progressions of pse~do-random
number generation what patterns will be applied and what the
output responses thereto must be.
The testing protocol employs pseudo random numbers as the
source of test stimuli. A maximum capacity pseudo-random number
generator of thirty-two bit capacity will produce 232-1 words
(numbers) each having a different bit capacity in each cycle of
operation, and will repeat the same succession of words in all
subsequent cycles. Therefore, if the generator at the start of
test is initialized (preset) to a given fixed number (other than
all zeros) the bit configuration of any pseudo-random number in
the cycle will be known. At time zero (preset time) the bit
configuration will be the present value. At any time subsequent
thereto, the bit configuration will be defined by its relative
position in the cycle. Again, by computer simulation, the
pattern configuration can be defined and correlated with the
position in the cycle. It could be stored in a table lookup, for
example, as it is invariable.
In the tester a counter stepped in synchronism with the
stepping of the pseudo-random generator selects which ones of the
232-1 patterns shall be applied as input stimuli sources. As an
example, if patterns 0-99 were to be used, the configuration of
those patterns will be known. Because the pseudo-random patterns
are used as a base for producing test patterns, thosq one hundred
test patterns, by way of example only, will have an approximate
statistical 50-50 split of binary ones and zeros. As the number
of patterns increased, the split of zeros and ones increases to
the limit of 2n-2/2n
Since 2 is very small compared to 2n, the effective ratio of
zeros to ones is 1:1.
.
FI9-85-026
~Z3~99
While the succession of input and output responses is known,
the tes~ing protocol does not compare the response of the DUT to
each individual input. Rather it produces a derived function of
a succession of output responses called for convenience a
"signature" and compares it with a known good signature. The
signature is a 32-bit binary number derived in a known regimented
binary processor which receives a group of DUT output responses
and derives the signature in response thereto. Since the input
stimuli are known, the computer can simulate the individual good
device responses thereto and derive the signature for any group
of input responses.
When the tester produces a signature which mis-compares with
the computer generated signature that device is defective. If
the signatures compare, the device is determined to be not bad,
but not necessarily good. It is only after a succession of
signature comparisons all producing comparisons that a device may
be determined to be good with a high degree of confidence.
Bad devices having a common fault signature will probably
have a common internal fault, but not necessarily. Therefore,
although a device may be cast aside when the first faulty
signature is detected, it is useful for fault diagnosis to extend
the test with several more groups of test patterns to determine
i there is more than one faulty signature.
For fault diagnosis the device is retested only with those
groups of patterns that yielded faulty signatures. During the
diagnostic testing, signatures are not used, as they are not per
se susceptible to analysis to locate faults. Their sole purpose
is to speed up the decision of bad or not-bad.
For fault diagnoses the output response of the DUT to each
individual successive input stimulus is xecorded. These are
compared by the computer to determine what pattern or patterns
produced the faulty comparison. By computer simulation the
operation of each circuit node within the device in response to
the input pattern can be examined to determine which node caus~d
the fault.
FI9-85-026
--8--
~2~
Pseudo-Random Pattern Generators
All of the pseudo-random pattern generators and the
multiple-input signature registers (MISR's) employ 32 bit linear
feedback shift registers (LFSRs) 100 such as that shown in Fig.
2.
Each binary feedback shift register consists of 32 shift
register stages 100-0 through 100-31 each stage having a
connection to a common A and a common B clock line ~not shown)
which when alternately pulsed will shift each binary bit to the
next succeeding stage.
To produce the pseudo-random patterns the output of the last
stage 100-31 is coupled back and combined in an EXCLUSIVE OR gate
101-3, 101-5, 101-6, 101-9, 101-ll, 101-12, 101-14, 101-15,
101-16,101-17, 101-18, 101-21, 101-23, 101-~5, and 101-26. With
these feedback taps, which is but one of many feedback
combinations, a complete sequence of 232 _ 1 pseudo-random
patterns of thirty-two bits each will be repetitively produced in
each cycle of operation. Each of the EXCLUSIVE OR gates in the
101 series will reverse the sense of the output from the
20 preceding respective stage if the output of stage 100-31 is a
binary one.
Each of the pseudo-random number generators used in the
tester has a different set of feedback taps so that each produces
a different sequence of random numbers. All produce a complete
set. Each LFSR is initially preset to a different given "seed"
number, other than all zeros. The preset line (not shown) is
selectively connected to the set or reset input of each
respective stage to preset the seed number.
With a known seed number and known configuration for each
respective LFSR and a known number of shifts from the preset
position the binary pattern of every pseudo-random pattern
generator is known at every point in every cycle.
Not only daes the use of parallel inputs increase the speed
of operation versus serial operation, as one might expect, but
more importantly the use of a differently configured random
number generator, each providing a different sequence of random
patterns reduces the statistical odds of any two input terminals
FI9-85-026
~2~5~
repeatedly receiving the identical input stimuli. It reduces the
interdependencies inherent in using a single pattern generator
and a serial mode of operation.
The pseudo random number generator of Fig. 2 is far superior
to those described in the foregoing background patents. In those
patents the multiple feedback taps were added in a modulo two
adder and entered into the first stage. Necessarily, that
required the cascading of many EXCLUSIVE OR gates, actually one
less gate than the number of feedback taps. This slowed the
repetition rate, as time was required for each gate to stabilize.
In the Fig. 2 embodiment only one EXCLUSIVE OR gate is employed
in the feedback loop occasioning only one delay.
When the linear feedback shift register (LFSR) is employed
as a multiple input shift register (MISR) additional parallel
inputs from the test output from the DUT are applied in parallel
to the six terminals 103A through 103F these are introduced as
inputs to the respective EXCLUSIVE OR gates 104-5, 104-9, 104-13,
104-21, 104-25, and 104-29. Like the feedback taps these
parallel inputs will change the interstage bit shift only if a
binary one is introduced. Where, as between the fourth and fifth
stages, the feedback tap and the MISR input are connected to the
same stage two serially connected EXCLUSIVE OR's (i.e. 101-5 and
104-5) are connected as shown.
While the LFSR's of Fig. 2, whether connected to operate as
a pseudo-random number generator or a MISR, may be wired in any
one of many ways, once wired they operate repetitively in a known
manner obeying invariable logic rules. Therefore, the operation
of each one is predictable and able to be simulated.
FI9-85-026
.~ ~
-10-
~3~
Weiqhting
When it is to be desired to weight khe inputs to the DUT to
produce a greater number of binary ones or zeros, the
pseudo-random number generators of Fig. 2 have the additional
circuitry shown in Fig. 3. None of the details of Fig. 2 is
repeated. The pseudo random number generator 100 is assumed to
have the feedback connections of Fig. 2 with a different
combination for each separate random number generator.
The weighting circuit 300 takes the outputs of the first
five stages of the LFSR lO0 (Fig.2) wired as a pseudo-random
*pattern generator (without DUT inputs to make it a MISR), and
connects them as shown directly, and through cascaded AND gates
301 through 304 to a weight selector 305. Each of the lines from
the LFSR 100 will produce substantially a 50-50 split of ~eros
and ones. This is true because of the characteristics of a
pseudo-random pattern generator. Thus the line 300E will produce
50% ones or zeros. However, when line 300E is "anded" with line
300D, the odds of producing a binary one at the output 301A of
AND 301 will be only 25%. Conversely the odds, of producing a
binary zero at this output will be 75%. By successive halving of
the odds the odds of producing a binary one or zero on each of
the output lines will be as follows:
L _Odds of OneOdds of Zero Weights
301E 50% 50% 1:1
301~ 25% 75% 1:3
302A12.5% 87.5% 1:7
303A6.25% 93.75% 1:15
304A3.125% 96.875~ 1:31
The weight selector and multiplexor functions to select one ~ -
of the input lines 300E, 301A, 302A, 303A, or 304A to be gated
through to the output line 305A and when it should be gated out.
If the line 300A were selected for weighting (weight of 1), the
weight selector and multiplexor would gate that line through upon
every shift cycle of the LFSR 100. If line 301A were selected,
FI9-85-026
.~
~ ~
~23~
the gating through would occur upon every second shift. For line
302A gating occurs every third shift, 303A every fourth shift,
and 304A every fifth shift.
The reason for delaying the shift through for up to every
five shifts is to reduce the interdependencies of successive
patterns, and to approach most closely the statistical weightings
shown in the foregoing table of values.
The control inputs 305B and 305C provide the selection of
the input line and the time that it should be gated through. A
final control is provided by input 306A which selects whether
binary zeros or binary ones are to have the greater weight.
Absent a control on 306A the EXCLUSIVE OR 306 will pass the
output of line 305A unaltered providing an "odds of zero" output
(col. 3 supra) on line 305B. Potentializing terminal 306A
weights the outputs in favor of binary ones by reversing the
sense of columns 2 and 3 supra, to provide a selection of weights
of 1, 3, ~, 15, or 31 for binary ones.
Level Sensitive Scan Device
While the instant test method and apparatus is operative to
test a great variety of solid state devices having many internal
functional elements which are inaccessible for direct testing, it
is particularly adapted for testing a level sensitive scan device
such as that described by Eichelberger in U.S. Patent 3,7S3, 254.
For ease of reference Fig. 7 of Eichelberger has been
reproduced herein as Fig. 6 with the same reference numbers~
Data inputs to the LSSD tFig. 6 of instant device) of
Eichelberger are entered via the terminals denoted by "S" and
"In" (line 45). As explained, the "S" inputs (stimulus) are sets
of data and the circuitry of Fig. 6 will in an actual device be
replicated many times. For purposes of explaining the operation
of the test apparatus it will be assumed that there are three
combinational networks like 30 and 31 each with its respective
sets of inputs "S". It will further be assumed that there may be
as many as three shift registers consisting of cascaded latch
sets such as 33 and 34. In which case there will be a separate
"IN" input for each of the shift registers.
FI9-85-026
-12-
:~3~5~
Outputs include "R", which again includes many individual
output lines, and line 46 "OUT" from the shift register which, if
there are more than one would have an output for each shift
register.
Control inputs include the "A" and "B" shift clocks for
shifting data serially through the shift registers. These ~ & B
clocks may be individual to each respective shift register. The
Cl C2 and C3 (not shown) are so-called system clocks which gate
the outputs o~ the combinational logic into the respective latch
sets. The "A" and "B" clocks are normally not used during
operation of the LSSD device. They are reserved for testing.
The "C" clocks are used during normal operation and for testing.
For an understanding of the complexity of testing an LSSD
device it will be assumed that a device may have as many as
ninety-si~ input and output terminals. This is for purposes of
explanation only and not a limit as to the size or complexity of
an LSSD device.
Test Apparatus Schematic
Recapping the explanation of the components making up the
elements of the test system, namely the pseudo-random number
generators, weighting circuitry, the MISR's and DUT itself, it
has been explained how each of these components operates in
accordance with invariable rules of logic and is thus susceptible
to precise simulation by computer programming. The interplay of
these components should now be apparent with reference to Fig. 4.
The DUT 50 is assumed to be an LSSD device as hereinabove
described with respect to Fig. 6, having inputs 50-1 to 50-96,
outputs 51 1 to 51-96 grouped into groups of six, and control
inputs Al, B1 through A3 B3, and Cl through C3.
For each input there is a pseudo-random number generator and
weighting circuit 300-1 to 300-96 such as that shown in Fig. 3O ~ s
Each of these is wired to produce a full sequence of 232 _ 1
diferently configured thirty-two bit binary patterns in a
discretely different sequence, and each has its own weighting
circuit. Initially each of the test pattern generators 300 is
FI9-85-026
.
-13-
~;~3~LS~
preset to its "seed" number by a control potential applied to
input terminal 308 (not shown in either Fig. 2 or Fig. 3) but
described as being selectively connected to the set or reset
control of each latch stage to preset the seed number, different
for each discrete unit, but always the same for any given unit.
~t this time the weight selection input for each unit 300 is
entered at 305B, and weight zero or weight one for each unit 300
entered at 306A. If the maximum weighting for any one terminal
input is thirty-one then the terminal 305C will enter a one out
of five signal to all of the multiplexors 305 in all of the
pattern generators 300 to gate the test patterns to the input
terminals every fifth shift. For a lesser maximum weighting an
input of one-out-of-four, one-out-of-three, one-out-of-two, or
every shift will condition all of the multiplexors accordingly.
The clock input 309 provides the clock inputs (A and B) pulses to
shift the bits through the random number generator and cloc~ the
multiplexor 305 to gate a bit through according to the highest
weighting assigned to any one input. The clock input also steps
a thirty-two bit counter 310 which is reset by the same input 308
which presents the "seed" number. The output 310a of the counter
is used to track the progression of random numbers through each
of the random number generators, and to implement the
instructions received from the computer as to the test protocol.
For example, if the test protocol required applying test patterns
ten thousand times to a given set of pin inputs the computer
would order which ones of the 232 _ 1 patterns would be
introduced. When the counter 310 produced a count corresponding
to the computer ordered count the patterns would be gated to the
respective DUT inputs, via multiplexors 305 (Fig. 3).
Thus, by correlating the pseudo-random number count with the
computer simulation every pattern entered into the DUT is
pre-ordained. For example, at count 9,856 the pattern in each
respective pseudo-random number generator is known, as is the
weighting for each respective input. It is also known for that
count which ones of the pins are to receive an input. Therefore
the input to each pin is known and is implemented by the tester
FI9-85-026
-14-
i9!3
in accordance with stored commands received from the computer,
specific to the DUT.
Thus the DUT 50 can receive up to ninety-six inputs in
parallel, each successive parallel set of inputs being
pre-ordained.
As the DUT 50 receives each set of test inputs and the
timing control inputs thereto are appropriately energized at the
proper time, test responses will appear at the output lines 51-1
to 51-96 in groups of 6. Each of these groups of six is entered
in parallel to the inputs of the LFSR 100 ~Fig. 2) wired as a
MISR 400-1 to 400-16 with inputs 103A through 103F. Thus each o~
the MISR's 400-1 through 400-16 will receive six parallel inputs
for a total of ninety-six. For each successive set of parallel
inputs the bit pattern existing in each of the MISR's will be
shi~ted one bit position and altered, or not altered, as a
function of the feedback taps and the parallel inputs. Thus a
first level signature will be developed by each of the MISR's
400-1 through 400-16. When the predetermined number of test
inputs and outputs has been produced, as for example lO,000
inputs and outputs, testing is temporarily halted and the
contents of the MISR's 400-l to 400-16 entered into the master
NISR 401. Each of the first level MISR's contains a 32-bit sub
signature which is a desired function of the succession of six
parallel inputs applied thereto and the chosen configuration of
the LFSR, together with the preset seed number.
The outputs of the sixteen first level MISR's are extracted
serially therefrom and entered in parallel into sixteen of the
stages of the master MISR 401 in thirty~two successive entries
and shifts of the master MISR 401 and MISR's 401-1 to 401-16.
Each of the MISR's 400-1 to 400-16 and 401 has a preset line
to preset them to a predetermined seed number and A and B clocks
(none of which is shown). These MISR's may all be conveniently
preset to the same seed number and have the same feedback taps,
as they are not requir~d to produce differently configured random
numbers. Their only function is to produce a predictable desired
signature in response to good outputs from the DUT. If they do
' notj the DUT is bad.
FI9-85-026
'~
~34S~
When each test sub-cycle is complete and MISR 401 has the
desired signature, that signature is serially read out on line
401C by alternately pulsing the clock lines 401A and 401B to
input the signature into comparator 402 which compares that
signature with a known good signature for the test sub-cycle just
completed, extracted from memory 403. A11 of the good signatures
for each test sub-cycle are developed by computer simulation and
pre-loaded into memory.
Upon completion of each sub-cycle, the MISR's are preset to
their initial condition so that the results of previous tests
will not contaminate the next test results. The pseudo-random
pattern generators need not be reset, because the counter ~10 and
its count output will continue to keep track of the patterns as
they are produced.
The timing of the various components includin~ the DUT, must
be conditioned to avoid any race conditions. All of the elements
within the DUT must be allowed to obtain a stable state before
the next set of test impulses is applied. Thus a master timing
generator (not shown) provides the requisite timing to assure the
achievement of the necessary stable states.
The use of signatures for every sub-cycle which may consist
of as many as 10,000 discrete test inputs materially reduces test
time because comparison need only be effected at the end of every
sub-cycle rather than for every new set of pattern inputs.
Through use of the MISR structure and a thirty~two bit signature
register the probability of a bad DUT producing a good signature
is so low as to be almost zero. Furthermore, by producing
successive signatures, each with a different test protocol the
probabilities of a test error are further reduced.
The number of test patterns to definitively test a complete
LSSD device is reduced by employing a plurality of pseudo-random
pattern generators, one for each input, each of which produces a
different independent sequence of patterns.
LSSD Test Pr_cedure
Although the advantages of the test method are applicable to
a great variety of complex semiconductor devices having many
FI9-85-026
,~
~
.
-16-
~23~
internal functional elements which are not directly accessible
for test purposes, these advantages are best illustrated by the
testing method employed for a LSSD device.
As has been stated, to completely test a complex structure
with all of the combinations and permutations of test inputs
becomes prohibitively time-consuming when the number of inputs is
increased.
The inherent flexibility of an LSSD for performing a great
variety of logic operations makes it very popular for computer
use. Therefore, in the following description it will be used to
best illustrate the versatility of the testing method.
Reference will be made to Fig. 6 of the instant application
as representative of a typical LSSD structure, which structure is
more fully described in the Eichelberger U.S. Patent No.
3,783,254 issued January l, 1974, from which Fig. 7 has been
replicated herein.
The basic concept, as will be apparent, is to employ random
patterns, weighted or unweighted, as test inputs, which random
patterns, while structured, are to the maximum extent not
interdependent.
After initiating the test equipment and conditioning it for
a new DUT, the following steps are employed to test a typical
LSSD:
(l) A succession of pseudo-randomly organized bits are applied
in parallel to the "IN" (Fig. 6) terminals of all shift
register inputs, however many they be, and are collected
from the "out" terminals (Fiy. 6) and entered in parallel
(for a plurality of shi~t registers) in a succession of
entries into the respectively connected stages of the
MISR's. Since the shift register latches are also connected
to the combinational network 16 (Fig. 6) the "R" outputs
therefrom are concurrently collected and enterea into the
MISR's. While the latch outputs are also fed to the likes
of combinational networks 10, 11, 12, these networks produce
no "R" outputs because their outputs must be gated into
latch sets by a system clock Cl - C3. For each entry there
must be a synchronized clocking of the pseudo-random number
FI9-85-026
,
9~3
generators and the MISR'S so that any outputs are discretely
entered.
(2) Without resetting the MISR's step 2 follows. A single bit
from each of the pseudo-random number generators, with or
without weighting, is entered in parallel into the "S"
inputs of the combinational networks 30, 31, and 32. Since
some of these inputs notably to unit 32, will produce
immediate outputs at "R", the "R" outputs resulting from the
"S" entries are entered in parallel into the MISR's. The
outputs from 30 and 31 are available for entry into the
storage latches but not entered for the lack of a system
clock pulse C.
(3) Without additional entries step 3 successively energizes the
system clocks Cl, C2, C3, depending on the LSSD structure.
Each of these system clocks will effect an entry into a
storage latch and an output therefrom regeneratively to
other ones of the combinational networks resulting in a
change in the "R" outputs. The successive "R" outputs for
each separate C clock are entered in parallel into the
MISR's with a timed shift of the MISR's to accommodate each
new entry.
'
~4) Step 4 pulses the LSSD "B" clock inputs to shift any bits
resident in the storage latches (derived from outputs of the
combinational logic~ into the second of each pair of latches
~5 in a stage. This is preparatory to shifting out the
contents of the latches operated as a shift register.
:
(5) The`final step is to scan out the contents of the shift
registers by alternately potentializing the LSSD A and B
clocks.~ ~or each~shift the~MISR's are also shifted so that
the~shift register ~!OuT~ signals and~the "R" outputs will be
collected by the~MISR~'s.
, ~:
:
FI9-85-026
:
;
-18-
It has been shown experimentally that there are some
faults associated with the system and test clocks that will not
be detected with repeated application of the above five steps.
For these faults, variations of the basic sequence are required.
One such variation repeats the basic sequence, omitting step 4,
the pulse of the I.SSD "B" clock. Another variation inserts an
additional LSSD "A" clock DC turn-on and turn-off prior to step
4. A third variation exercises either a single system clock or
no system clock ion step 3. The overall pattern application
strategy consists of many repetitions of the basic five steps and
relatively few repetitions of the special sequences.
This succession of steps is repeated perhaps as many as ten
thousand times while the output responses are collected. At the
end of test, the first level MISR's are read out serially and
entered in parallel to the second level MISR to produce a final
signature which is then compared to the signature produced by
simulation.
It is to be noted and reemphasi~ed that even though the test
inputs are produced by random number generators, the sense of
every bit introduced into the LSSD is known, and capable of
simulation. So, too, the response of the LSSD to every input and
to every clock pulse is predictable by simulation. The operation
of the MISRIs is also predictable so that the test-generated
signature can be compared with the simulated signature. If, for
example, there is no change in the output status o a given pin,
either because there is no connection thereto or the particular
test step produced no change, that phenomenon will be simulated
to produce the simulated signature~
By virtue of the parallel operation of the tester, the use
of differently structured pseudo-random number generators for
each input, and the production of signatures in parallel with a
~inal signature only after several thousand test patterns in
which all elements of the DUT are exercised, testing is
materially speeded with a very high percentage of accuracy.
Weighting_Algorithm
FI9-85-026
. .
-19-
3~5~
Much of the reduction in the number of test patterns
required to obtain definitive tests with a very high degree of
accuracy is caused by intelligent weighting of the inputs. While
weighting to test the function of the latches, when operated as a
simple shift register, is not necessary, it does produce a
substantial reduction in the required test patterns when testing
combination logic networks.
The method and apparatus for producing and selecting various
weights of binary zeros and ones by "anding" the outputs of
successive stages of a pseudo-random pattern generator has
previously described with respect to Fig. 3. Nothing was
explained as to the rationale for the selection of a one or zero
weight with respect to each individual device input.
The rationale for the selection is derived from an analysis
lS of the device itself by computer analysis of all possible circuit
paths from the output terminals of the device to the input device
in accordance with the following rules and and algorithm.
Conceptually distributions of ones and zeros are the
hundreds complement of one another. The exclusive OR gate 91
permits the weighting in favor of ones or æeros by applying a
control one to the terminal 91a A binary one control will
reverse the sense of the output of the multiplexor r a zero
control will preserve it.
For certain of the testing protocols, involving no
weighting, only the pulses appearing on line 81E will be gated
out and then every shift cycle to provide a 50-50 split of zeros
and ones.
Wei~hting
Conceptually weighting is intended to preferentially apply a
greater number of zeros or a greater number of ones to the input
terminals of a device under test to increase the odds of
detecting a malfunction of an internal circuit element that is
not directly accessible for testing. Since there are many more
internal circuit elements than there are input and output
terminals an input on any given input pin will affect the
operation of many internal elements. Conversely inputs to
FI9-85-026
-20-
~23~S~39
discretely different input pins will affect the operation of
certain one or more elements affected by inputs on different
input pins. The same is true of the response on the output pins.
Because different weights are to be assigned to individual
pins, according to the number of internal circuit elements
affected by an input signal on any input pin, the nature of the
circuit elements, and the interconnection of the affected circuit
elements, the weighting circuit shown in Fig. 2 must be
replicated for every possible combination of weights and for
every input, so as to reduce the probability of any two inputs to
DUT receiving identical input stimuli. Thus, for every different
pseudo-random number generator there is an associated weighting
circuit with individual weighting controls.
The weight selection for any one input pin requires a sort
of "daisy-chain" analysis wherein the last circuit element
connected to an output pin is traced backward through all
possible paths to one or more input pins. This is done for every
path between each output pin through all possible paths to one or
! more input pins. The respective weights for each input pin is
determined by the following series of calculations performed by a
computer program which implements the algorithm of Fig. 3.
- To test an AND circuit having twenty inputs requires about a
million random patterns to test for the circuit output stuck at
zero. This requires all twenty inputs to be at a one state. If
each input has an equal chance to be one or zero then the chance
of all twenty inputs receiving all ones is one out of 22. If
the probability of placing a one at the inputs were increased,
the number of random patterns necessary for testing could be
dramatically reduced. In general it is desirable to increase the
probabilities of values at the device inputs that place
non-controlling values on the logic blocks. ~ne values are
preferred on the inputs of AND inputs type blocks. ~owever, one
cannot ignore the possibility of one of the AND being stuck at
- one so that an input of all ones would not be a definitive test.
There must, therefore, be a probability of placing at least one
zero on each of the inputs of the AND gates to preclude the
attendant gate being stuck at one.
`
FI9-85-U26
.
-21-
3L23~5~9
Therefore, the probability of placing the non-controlling
value at any input of the block should be increased according to
the approximate formula:
(1) P i - 3 - N [N2 - 2N ~ 5]1/2
2 - 2N
where N = number of inputs to the block
The desired ra~io of non-controlling value to the controlling
value is given by Rmin = 1
1 Pmin
For a four input AND the probability of placing a one level
at each input should be .768 to minimize the number of random
patterns necessary to test all stuck faults associated with the
block. The probability for a five input AND gate is .809.
This probability calculation is only valid when the
circuitry feeding each input is identical. This seldom occurs in
practice so it is necessary to compensate for the differences in
lS circuitry associated with the inputs of a block to achieve an
accurate weight.
One way to compensate for the difference in input circuitry
is to adjust probabilities based on the number of device inputs
(primary inputs and LSSD latches) which control each input of the
block. By this strategy, the odds of placing the non-controlling
value of the block at an input would be increased by the ratio of
the number of device inputs which control that block and the
number of device inputs which control that input. This strategy
accurately compensates for input complexity only fox circuits
which have~no reconvergence or multiple fanouts. When these
conditions exist, this strategy can result in ovex-compensation
for the effect of differences in input circuitry.
':
Weight Calculation Algorithm
:
:
, : ~
FI9-85-026
-22-
~3~S~3
Actual experiments on a large number of different
manufactured devices have shown that a better weighting strategy
is an averaging of the strategies hereinabove described. These
are the Pmin formula (1) and the adjustment to probabilities
based on the number of device inputs (primary inputs and LSSD
latches) which control each input of the block. The following
steps are performed to determined the weighting factors
associated with all device inputs.
~. Assign for each logic block in the circuit two numbers
that represent the zero weight (W0) and the one weight
(Wl). These numbers are initialized to one. The ratio
of the final values of W0 and Wl for the device inputs
will indicate the odds of placing a zero value at that
input.
B. Determine for each logic block in the circuit the
number of device inputs (NDI) that logically control
that block.
C. Perform a backtrace from each device output (to an
output pin or LSSD latch) as the backtrace proceeds
backward from bloclc X to block Y, WO and Wl for block Y
(WOy and Wly) are adjusted depending on the logical
function of block X in accordance with the following
formula:
NDIX + Rmin (Nx)
(2)
NDI
K = Y
where NDIX = number of device inputs controlling
block X
NDIy = number of device inputs controlling
block Y
; Mx = number of inputs to block X
FI9-85-026
~L~3~S~3
Rmin = block input weighting factor
(formula 2 supra)
There are four cases corresponding to different logic
functions of block X.
S X Block Type WO Wl
AND Wx K x Wlx
AND-INVERT Wlx K x Wx
OR X x Wx Wlx
OR-INVERT X x Wlx Wx
The new value of W0y will be the maximum of W0 from the
above table and the old value of W0y. Likewise, the new value
~for Wly will be the maximum of Wl and the old value of Wly.
D. For each device input determine:
Dl Weighted value (WV). This indicates which value is
to be weighted. If W0 > Wl, then WV = O. For the
converse WV = 1.
: D2 Weight Factor ~WF). This indicates the weighting
factor associated with a device input. It is
calculated by divlding the larger of W0 or Wl by the
smaller one thereof.
,
:
::;
,
`
:
.: : :
:: :` : :
FI9-85-026 ~
.
-24-
~3~
The calculation of the weighting is implemented by the
program shown schematically in Fig. 5.
While the reference to the various logic blocks a "X"
blocks or "Y" blocks is generic to any o~ a great variety of
devices, in a computation of weighting of a specific device,
each logic element within the device would have a unique
identi~ication number as would the inpu~ and output pins.
Each logic element would be characterized by its logic
function, and the connections to all other logic elements.
Thus the computer by chaining can trace every path from each
output pin to any input pin through all possible routes. The
logic model 10 Fig. 1 contains this information and is used in
conjunction with Fig. 3 to control the traceback.
The first s~ep 200 is to use the logic model 10 (Fig. 1),
~stored in the computer to count the number of logic inputs for
each logic block in the DUT and store the value for each.
Since the logic model contains a schematic of the internal
circuitry of the DUT, this is a simple count of the number of
device inputs (not pin inputs) to each logic node.
~0 The second step 201 merely initializes the zero weight
~WO) and one weight (Wl) for all logic blocks.
The third step 202 selects one logic block "X" connected
to an output to begin the trace therefrom back to an input.
It then selects one of the several input blocks to the
selected "X" block and designates it as "Y". It then
determines from the logic model the function of logic block X
in steps 204, 206, or 208 and branches respectively to steps
205, 207, 209 D
Depending on which of the branches is selected, the zero
weight (WOyl) and the one weight (Wlyl) are computed in
accordance with the bracketed formulae, the details o~ which
have previously been explained. The stored computation ~ '
proceeds to block 211. If 211=YES the traceback is ~inished
i.e., the tracebac~ has proceeded to an input pin , and the
computed value obtained in steps 205, 207, 209 or 210 is the
weighted value for that pin.
FI9-85-026
._ ,
.
-25-
~234599
However, the originally selected "X" block has multiple
inputs, and if the currently chosen traceback path was the
initial one, block 212=YES, signifying that one needs to
return to bloc~ "X" and repeat the traceback from a second
input to block "X" through another path. Block 213 in essence
instructs the computer to return to block "X`' and trace back
through the next untraced path from block X, returning to
block 203 and repeating the sequence through the sequence just
traced. $his sequence is repeated until all paths from X to
an input have been traced.
If, in ~racing back from the original X block the
traceback does not reach an input pin via a single intervening
"Y`' block (211=NO). Then the original "Y" bloc~ becomes a new
"X" block. That new X block may be an input (215=YES). In
which case the trace proceeds to block 216 which returns the
traceback to the original "X" block for a traceback through a
second or third path therefrom.
If the new "X" block is not an input (215=NO) that new
"X" block is the origin of the traceback proceeding from block
203, until an input pin is reached. This substitution of "X"
for a "Y" block may occur several times until an input pin is
reached.
When all of the outputs have been traced back to an input
pin, each input pin will have a zero weight and one weight
computed from all possible traceback paths. The greater of
the zero weight or one weight is selected as the weighting for
that particular pin. The appropriate weighting controls and
timing of Fig. 3 are selected.
In the simulation each logic block has an identifying
number, an identification of the kind of logic block, as well
as the input and output connections to the preceding and
succeeding logic blocks and input and output pins. The
program schematic of Fig. 3, when implemented in a computer,
would not use the "X" and "Y" designations but actual logic
block ID. numbers. This simplifies the backtrace by
eliminating the need to determine whether a "X" block is a
terminal logic element or an intermediate one.
FI9-85-026
-26-
3~
Diagnostic _ ting
In a well-controlled device manufacturing line there will
be relatively few bad devices. Since one-hundred percent
testing is desirable it is expedient to design the testing
protocol to segregate the bad devices in the shortest test
time, and not to prejudice the test time of production testing
in an attempt to find the defect in these few devices.
If for any reason production testing reveals an
unacceptable level of quality or if one wishes to know the
nature of the defects to improve the quality level, then
diagnostic testing is advantageous.
Diagnostic testing in effect replicates the protocol
employed in production testing but partitions the testing into
small segments. Whereas the final signature of a bad device
is not susceptible to fault analysis, the test results of
small segments are. The summation of the test protocols of
the segments is the same as the production test.
Given a bad chip (failed the production test) it is
subjected ~o the following steps to develop a data bank which
is then used to diagnose the defect that caused the device to
fail.
Step_I
A. The tester is initialized to the identical state
employed in the production test which the device
failed.
B. ~ segment length counter is initialized to *he
segment length desired.
C. The production test protocol is replicated for a
number of iterations equal to the selected segment
length and interrupted.
FI9-85-0~6
.
: , .
-27-
5~a
D, The final second level signature produced by the
segment test is compared with the signature of a
good device produced by simulation of testing of
this segment.
E. If the signatures compare, testing proceeds to the
next following segments in succession until a bad
segment is detected.
For a bad segment Step II is followed.
Step II
.
Re-test of a bad segment anywhere in the succession o~
segments.
A. Initialize the pseudo-random number generators to
their respective states at the beginning of the
segment test just run.
Note: This is of record and obtained by computer
simulation of the known progression of pseudo~random
numbers.
B. Initialize the MISRs to their respective states at
the beginning of test of this segment.
C. Initlalize the segment length counter for the
segment length to~be~repeated.
D. ~ Run the test to completion for this segment length
and record
l. The~respective~states~of the pseudo-random
~ ; g~enerators~a~ the~start o~ this ségment test. ~ t
~2, All bit patterns entered into the MISRs during
thè~replicated~production test;;for this segment
3~. ~The number and ~kind of~tester loops employed~in
this segment.
FI9-85-026 ~
. ~ :
-28-
~3~S9~3
E. At the end of this bad segment test and data
collection, proceed to Step III.
Step III
Segment Test Following a Bad Segment Re-Test
A. Initialize the pseudo~random pattern generators to
the respective states they should occupy for the
beginning of a segment test following a bad segment.
Note: Known by simulation.
B. Initialize the MISRs to their respective states they
should occupy for the beginning of this segment, if
preceded by no bad segment tests.
Note: Known by simulation
C~ Initialize the segment length counter for this next
segment length.
D. Run the test to completion.
E. If good, proceed to next segment test.
F. If bad, re-test this segment as in Step II.
If, by way of example, the data for a bad device were
collected for a segment length of one hundred, that data can
be analyzed by fault simuIation in a computer to pinpoint the
internal elements stuck at zero or stuck at one. Since many
of the internal elements will probably not be exercised by the
few number of patterns within a segment, the task of
determining which one or ones of the elements produced the ~`~
fauIty test-output is materially reduced. The diagnosis can
be enhanced if several segments which failed are similarly
analyzed and reveal a common failure mode. Alternatively,
analysis of a good~segment could preclude a certain failure
mode if that ailure mode~would~have produced a bad test of a~
FI9-85-026
:'
:
,
-29-
~7~3~
good testing segment. Should there be compensating defects in
a device which in some instances might produce a good test of
a segment, they could not be compensating in all instances.
The segment tests will discover them.
As has been explained, LSSD devices obey strict logic
rules so that the output response for any succession of input
stimuli and cycle variations can be simulated. The input
stimuli being generated by pseudo-random pattern generators
are known at every instance in the test protocol. So, too,
are the logic functions implemented by the MISRs ~o produce
the signatures capable of simulation.
Therefore, whether a device is being production tested or
diagnostically tested its response at every checkpoint can be
simulated to provide signatures or other bit patterns against
~which a device under test can be compared.
With the method and apparatus as described,
1. Production testing time can be materially reduced
with substantially fewer test patterns because of:
a. Parallel input of test stimuli produced by
pseudo-random pattern generators, each
producing a different unique sequence of test
patterns.
b. The weightiny of the input patterns as a
function of the internal structure of the
~5 device to be tested, and
c. The use of parallel signature generators which
receive the output responses at each test
interval and produce a gross signature
indicating "goodness" or "badness" at the end
of test.
2. Diagnostic testing for failure mode analysis employs
the same protocol as production testing, but
partitions the testing into small segments and
.
~ FI9 85-026
,~ , '' .:
`
-30-
~Z~599
produces a small set of data that can be analyzed
for failure mod~ by fault simulation which is
materially simplified by the small data set produced
by the partitioning.
While the invention has been illustrated and described
with reference to preferred embodiments thereof, it is to be
understood that the invention is not limited to the precise
construction herein disclosed and the right is reserved to all
changes and modifications coming within the scope of the
invention as defined in the appended claims.
:
. .
:
:
:` : ~: : : :
~ FI9-85-026 : ~
.
